iPhone No More...

[Howard]

Apple also have copyright over the pronoun 'I', so technically we have to refer ourselves in the third person, like The Rock does.


What is the significance of the 'i' in ipod anyway, what does it stand for? Why should anyone give a monkeys anyway?

It's trendy

[MadduckUK]

insecurity?

[SilentDeath]

no, because then apple would have avoided the in-use name (see iTV -> appleTV)

by squatting the trademark until *just* before it saw use, cisco have guaranteed that apple are stuck - they can't change the name without losing out on a lot of the generated buzz, so they may as well write a blank cheque

But they were not squatting the trademark, they have owned it for 7 years and it was registered for their own use (and not just to annoy apple, so slightly different than your example)

Apple should have checked the trademark was not owned by someone else before naming their product... as I said before it doesn't have to be in use.

I think apple have decided its better for advertising, just to get sued, rather than acctually pay for the use of the name, and if they win its theirs anyway..

Anyway, i think the real question is do I want to hear the word iphone constantly for the next year when ever Im near a group of chavs. The answer is no.


the marketing team for apple is probably the one I hate the most. They should be locked up in a cage with 100's of flesh eating pigeons.

[UltraMagnus]

Apple also have copyright over the pronoun 'I', so technically we have to refer ourselves in the third person, like The Rock does.


What is the significance of the 'i' in ipod anyway, what does it stand for? Why should anyone give a monkeys anyway?

hmm...
ignorant?
incompetence?
incontenence?
insecurity?

anyone else got any ideas?

[DannagE]

Here's a website I just found where they think that have the answer to the i in iPod. What do you think?

http://macenstein.com/default/archives/186

[finlay666]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/11/i...ated-at-birth/

Link theif lol

and IMO apple are in a win win situation, they get sued, they get a load of free media attention, possible sympathy from the consumer, and also its clearly an apple phoduct

I would LOL if Cisco bought out an iPhone burely just to try and steal some competition, if it was cheaper and had mp3 functions its pretty much all they would need really...i mean to someone that has just heard of the name they might not know any better........

[Steve B]

if cisco are suing apple for branding their product iphone, why are they not also suing the owners of www.iphone.com for the same reasons?

directhex is right, its trolling

[JPreston]

It would be trolling if they sprang out of nowhere, however it's claimed that apple and cisco have been in negotiations over the 'iphone' trademark for years and certainly before development of apple's iphone began.

Apple then, have refused to buy it legally but instead chose to go ahead and develop and launch the product anyway, using a name they knew all along was unavailable. They could easily have just called it something else. I can't imagine a clearer case of infringement than that.

[yamangman]

Good move by Cisco if you ask me, the move is Apple's fault and Apple's fault alone, but to be honest, this is just going to make both companies lawyers very rich.

[raverbaby]

cisco have had the iphone trademark for 7 years, and have been releasing SIP phones without that brand name for a good number of them

and they finally decide to use the trademark a fortnight before macworld on an unremarkable new model?

they're being trolls, plain & simple

yup, as much as i hate the all ipod thing i'm with Apple on this. And i also think the iPhone is a great device, though i dont think it's anything more then a PDA with Mac OS on it

[TheAnimus]

yup, as much as i hate the all ipod thing i'm with Apple on this. And i also think the iPhone is a great device, though i dont think it's anything more then a PDA with Mac OS on it

It's not even that

I first thought woo cool multi touch, and i was getting the credit card prepped!

Then i found it its more locked down than any other smart phone out there. So much so, i wouldn't call it a smart phone, more the Specail Needs phone, its rather crippled.

[Steve B]

So much so, i wouldn't call it a smart phone, more the Specail Needs phone, its rather crippled.

uberlollage

[awm]

I guess with the trademark Apple was put in an awkward place with iPhone being the name used by everybody for their phone and with Cisco owning the name and putting out a product, probably to help them get $$$,$$$,$$$ from Apple.

[MadduckUK]

Link theif lol

i posted the pics and linked to where i got them. please explain trhis "link thief"?

[Saracen]

But they were not squatting the trademark, they have owned it for 7 years and it was registered for their own use (and not just to annoy apple, so slightly different than your example)

Apple should have checked the trademark was not owned by someone else before naming their product... as I said before it doesn't have to be in use.

Actually, yes it does have to be in use.

Ultimately, it's a legal argument and trademark law varies from country to country. For instance, so far as EU law is concerned, a period of 5 years of non-use is enough to at least put even a registered trademark in jeopardy, is grounds for a revocation application and is certainly enough to prevent the automatic 10-year renewal option.

At the very least, non-use puts a question mark over Cisco's "ownership" of an unused trademark, especially if it appears they're just trying to cash in.

But it is certainly EU policy that unused trademarks are lost, specifically to stop people camping on them indefinitely. Oh, and just such a revocation application was applied for by Apple against Cisco.

From my limited knowledge of Trademark law, Apple appear to have a good chance, at least in Europe.